Decent result against a cash for crash scammer

[T.C]

Respondents who had admitted bringing a fraudulent personal injury claim in a contrived road traffic collision were committed to six weeks in prison for contempt of court. That sentence reflected a substantial reduction from 12 months' imprisonment as they had admitted the fraud and had willingly assisted the insurer in disclosing information.

The applicant insurance company (L) applied for the committal of the respondents (R1, R2, R3 and R4) for contempt of court.

The respondents had brought a claim for car damage and personal injury arising out of a collision. L alleged that the claim was fraudulent and the collision was contrived. The respondents subsequently admitted that they had put forward statements in support of a fraudulent claim. The respondents alleged that R1 and R2, who were husband and wife, had been approached by an acquaintance and, in exchange for a fee, had agreed to advance a claim based on a contrived collision. In the course of the instant proceedings the respondents had disclosed information on the acquaintance who had allegedly formulated the claim. R1 and R2 had two young children, one of which was only 4 months old and still breastfeeding. The claim had been brought in R1's name and she had visited the doctor in order to obtain a medical report in support of the claim. R3 and R4 were R1's parents.

HELD: Although, if the respondents' account was taken to be true, they were mere "foot soldiers", their conduct had to be deterred because it struck at the heart of the justice system and affected the public as a whole in increasing the cost of insurance policies. Against that background and the need to deter anyone from engaging in such serious fraud, there was no alternative but to impose custodial sentences. Nonetheless, the court had to take into account the fact that they had admitted to the fraud and, more significantly, that they had willingly assisted L in disclosing the relevant information. However, R1 had not merely agreed to lend her name but had assisted in the scheme by visiting the doctor. Although her having such young children was a factor to be considered, she must have appreciated that the proceedings were ongoing and that there was a real risk of a custodial sentence. The court would be failing in its duty to the public and in deterring such further conduct if it did not impose an immediate custodial sentence. The court would have imposed a sentence well in excess of 12 months, but in view of her assistance to L with the disclosure of information, a substantial reduction was appropriate: the court ordered R1 to serve six weeks' imprisonment. There was no reason to distinguish R2's conduct, and accordingly he was also sentenced to six weeks' imprisonment. In light of R3 and R4's lesser involvement and the fact that R1 and R2 had led them into the situation, a suspended sentence of six weeks' imprisonment was appropriate for them.

Application granted
____________________
It is better to arrive 30 seconds late in this world, than 30 years early in the next

[st3v3]

So is this the first documented/benchmark case where an insurance company has taken a policy holder to court for lying, in relation to a claim?

Did they make any attempt to regain any financial reward or was it stopped before a payout?
____________________
Roger wrote: Women don't get damp for clingy puppies. Get some better happy pills, hit the gym & buy a medallion the size of a dinner plate. Job done

[iooi]

So what has happened to the "acquaintance" who it would seem was the root cause of the claim....
____________________
Just because my bike was A DIVVY, does not mean i am......

[Andy_Pagin]

"there was no alternative but to impose custodial sentences"

Don't you just love the way they virtually apologize to the convicts for banging them up.

Just for once I'd like to hear a judge say

"Well sunshine I'd LOVE to sentence you to three consecutive Sundays inside followed by a quick release through a trapdoor, but..."
____________________
They're coming to take me away, ho-ho, hee-hee, ha-haaa, hey-hey,
the men in white coats are coming to take me away.
Yamaha Vity -> YBR125 -> FZS600 Fazer -> FZ1-S Fazer

[Walloper]

We need to regulate the ambulance chasers too. No-Win-No-Fee
Rabid Legal Services (Name changed to protect the infidel) et al who profit from challenging insurers who, forced to roll over, are paying out to trivial complaints. And most probably to folk who regularly sponge and do not pay into the (our) insurance 'fund'.

This has been brought up at serious government level and from what I seen of proceedings there seems nowt much can be done to stamp out this disgusting/disgraceful 'legal' practice.

The folk who are paid for the claims and the companies who assist in chasing payouts are paid by us.

And it seems likely to get worse. Folk who do not claim are being punished by those who claim for cuts, grazes and ruffled hair.
____________________
W-ireless A-rtificial L-ifeform L-imited to O-bservation P-eacekeeping and E-fficient R-epair

[DrDonnyBrago]

[Pete.]

[Walloper]

[Rogerborg]

Hang on, no-win-no-fee is the only realistic option for most of us.

The issue is incentivising scammers by maying cash payouts, and insurers who also run hire scams schemes trying to make their money from charging each other £100 a day for hire vehicles, which just gets into a "I need to screw you harder than you're screwing me" spiral.

Solutions:
Claimants get funded treatment and care instead of cash bonanzas.

Prevented insurers from claiming more than fair market value from each other for providing hire vehicles.

That still leaves the issue of completely fake crashes being 'fixed' by Dodgy Dan's House of Repair Invoices, but I'll solve world hunger first then come back to that one.
____________________
Biking is 1/20th as dangerous as horse riding.
GONE: HN125-8, LF-250B, GPz 305, GPZ 500S, Burgman 400 // RIDING: F650GS (800 twin), Royal Enfield Bullet Electra 500 AVL, Ninja 250R because racebike

[T.C]

[Pete.]

I think you'll find that a lot of it is that people don't know the difference between the law firm and the claim management company. From the perspective of the common person, they seem to be one and the same.

Perhaps you could write a short 'idiot's guide' T.C. and spell out the differences in how they operate and implications of using them? I know you've already posted a fair bit about it but it's spread about a bit a run-down in simple terms would probably make understanding a lot easier for most.

I'm sure it would be a very well-received contribution.
____________________
a.k.a 'Geri'

132.9mph off and walked away. Gear is good, gear is good, gear is very very good

[Walloper]

[quote="T.C"]

[Pete.]

Also, what happened to the person who masterminded the fraud in the first place?
____________________
a.k.a 'Geri'

132.9mph off and walked away. Gear is good, gear is good, gear is very very good

[Rogerborg]